|
|
| | |
|
Welcome to the BPIR blogLatest news:
March 11th, 2010
Terry Mathis, founder of U.S. ProAct Safety, writes [1] that it has been found that successful safety improvement initiatives are:
1. Proactive: the successful implementation of reactive safety programmes will inevitably generate the need for the development of proactive safety programmes.
2. Focused: traditional initiatives commonly lead to the development of many rules and procedures, and these tend to overwhelm and to diffuse employee attention. Truly successful safety efforts focus upon the most important dangers and the appropriate ways to avoid these. When employees begin to automatically take precautions themselves then accidents rates tend to drop permanently.
3. Transformational: precautions that have the potential to produce a significant positive impact upon accidents are termed transformational precautions. Truly excellent safety efforts do not seek for modest gains, but for goals that will transform accident rates using minimal and practical levels of effort.
4. Employee Centric: safety improvements are often limited through a lack of worker involvement. Effective safety initiatives must approach risk from both a management and an employee perspective.
5. Clearly Communicated: effective communication is a trademark of successful safety initiatives, and when deeds and words don't match then the message becomes unclear.
6. Results Oriented: some safety initiatives have emphasised process metrics over results metrics. A profound knowledge of safety is found using both process metrics and result metrics along with an understanding of the relationship between the two.
7. Multi-dimensional: successful safety efforts benefit from contributions from quality, technology and behavioural science approaches.
8. Integrated: successful safety initiatives must become integrated into everything that an organisation does. Safety programmes that do not mesh with day-to-day activities are seldom successful, and they are certainly not sustainable. Integrated safety needs to become an organisational value.
9. Practical: safety success can be advanced by theories, but ultimately it can not be achieved if it does not fit the cultural, procedural and the real conditions that are found in the workplace.
10.Humanistic: Successful safety programmes need to win the hearts and minds of the people involved. Ultimately the reasons behind working on safety are just as important as the way it is implemented. Goals dominated by financial targets and benchmarks alone will not win the hearts of the people who are able make initiatives truly successful.
[1] Mathis, T., (2008), What Does Safety Success Look Like?, Occupational Hazards, Vol 70, Iss 8, pp 43-47, Penton Media, Inc., Cleveland
Members may read the full article which provides further advice about successful safety management.
Not a member? read about our membership benefits , or click here to join now!
Neil Crawford
BPIR
Write a Comment
March 8th, 2010
Significant rewards can be returned when attention is given to both patient safety and health care worker safety. Thomas Krause and John Hidley, executives of U.S. Behavioural Science Technology Inc., write [1] that patient safety and employee safety are inseparable since both are the products of an organisation’s culture. Krause & Hidley suggest the following five ways of thinking in regard to patient/employee safety:
1. Think leadership: when optimising health care safety performance it is essential to begin with leadership i.e. the board of directors, physician leaders, and the health care system leaders, including the CEO and his/her direct reports. When patient and employee safety improves so too does employee satisfaction; organisational citizenship; patient satisfaction; quality of care; malpractice costs decrease, and the overall reputation/financial security of an institution will likewise improve.
2. Think systems: patient and employee safety should focus upon systems performance to a greater extent than individual performance. In practice adverse events arise mostly from complex processes that are embedded within an organisation. Root-cause analysis of incidents shows clearly that, while individuals are often blamed, the real cause of incidents is almost always a failure of systems. The responsibility for providing adequate systems belongs to the leadership of the organisation.
3. Think strategy: an overarching strategy must be used to significantly improve patient safety. Too often, safety comes after efficiency, after economy and after profit. In professional group meetings or in board meetings, safety is often very low on the agenda, if it is there at all. Safety must command a central position of strategic value to organisational leadership at all levels.
4. Think culture: leaders create culture with their every thought, word and deed. Leadership predicts culture, and culture predicts safety outcomes. Krause and Hidley state that “since leadership shapes culture, and culture predictably defines the likelihood of exposure to harm, leaders are obligated to take action consciously and continually to mitigate hazard.” A fundamental ethical error in regard to patient safety is committed when leaders know how to minimize exposure to harm but don't take any action to make this happen.
5. Think behaviour: learn to think about patient safety in terms of behaviour - particularly one’s own behaviour. Effective safety leadership involves finding the specific relationship between ones actions as a leader and the state of patient safety, both organisation wide, and within local functional areas of responsibility. Once this relationship is understood then it becomes possible to change behaviour to everyone's benefit.
[1] R10854 Krause T. R., Hidley, J. H., (2008), Five Ways to Think About Patient Safety, Trustee, Vol 61, Iss 10, pp 24-27, Health Forum Inc., Chicago
Members may read the full article which provides further excellent advice concerning Healthcare safety management.
Not a member? read about our membership benefits , or click here to join now!
Neil Crawford
BPIR.com
Write a Comment
February 25th, 2010
In an article in the Quality Journal "How to Lead When the Generation Gap Becomes Your Everyday Reality", the author, Issy Gesell, identifies the four generations in today’s workplace as:
" The Silent Generation: The oldest generational group, born between 1925 and 1945, is the Silent Generation. Also called Traditionalists, Seniors, and Veterans, this group values hard work, conformity, dedication, sacrifice, and patience. Members of this generation are comfortable with delayed recognition and reward.
The Baby Boomers: The largest group in the work force is the Baby Boomers. Born between 1946 and 1964, Boomers are characteristically optimistic and team oriented. They place a high value on their work ethic while also seeking personal gratification and growth.
Generation X: The smallest group in size is Generation X, which also is known as the Sandwich Generation because of its position between the two largest groups. These folks were born between 1965 and 1980 and were the first "latchkey" kids. They are self-reliant, global thinkers who value balance, fun, and informality.
The Millennial Generation: Millennial were born between 1981 and 2000, and ultimately will become the largest group. Even though less than half of them are presently in the work force, they already are having a significant impact on organizational leadership. Members of this generation exhibit confidence, optimism, civic duty, sociability, street smarts, inclusivity, collaboration, and open-mindedness. They tend to be goal oriented. Most of today's organisational leaders represent the Silent Generation or Baby Boomers. Over the past 40 years, these two generations have learned to work together. You can begin to raise awareness about the differences among the generations and their implications to your organization by facilitating a dialogue between and among the generations. Current leaders would be wise to assess their leadership style, knowledge of the different generations, and personal attitudes toward the different members of their work force." Izzy suggests the following questions can serve as a basis for evaluating personal perspectives and approaches:
- What differentiates each generation?
- Which generations are you responsible for leading?
- How do generational differences impact your perceptions and leadership style?
- How do those differences manifest themselves in the organization?
- How can you lead intra-generational and intergenerational groups?
- What can you do as a leader to foster mixedgenerational dialogue and problem solving?
- Which generation has the strongest impact on your organization?
- Is your organization more like General Motors or Google?
- How do the major aspects of your organization's culture ("generation-bias") align more with one generation than the others?
- How does that generation-bias impact inclusion, recruitment, retention, and development of employees?
How will you manage?
We also found this clip on YouTube:
"How will you manage in an era of transformative changes in workplace demographics, technology, regulations, and expectations? Kronos and XPLANE present fascinating statistics."
Kevin McKenna
BPIR
Write a Comment
February 18th, 2010
While researching some BPIR.com related subject matter, I came accross this interesting bit of information which I thought was worth sharing on the Blog:
Ian Sutton [1] a process risk manager with U.S. AMEC Paragon believes that the root causes of safety and environmental problems are often economic. Managers can be subjected to relentless pressure to cut costs, while at the same time being expected to increase production rates, implement new initiatives, and to install new technology. This can lead to a mindset which crosses acceptable safety thresholds. The following six indicators are flags that thresholds are being challenged:
- Unrealistic stretch goals. If an organization is stretched far enough major system failures are certain to occur.
- Excessive cost reduction demands. Managers being expected to "do more with less" can, over the long term, lead to the unsafe conditions being created.
- Belief that "it cannot happen here". Catastrophic events are very rare and this contributes to an “I'll chance it" syndrome. Often managers and employees fail to distinguish between occupational safety and process safety. In fact the actions needed to improve occupational safety, as measured by the number of lost-time accidents, are quite different from those needed to prevent catastrophic, low probability and low frequency events. Organisations that have often reported excellent day-to-day and month-to-month safety figures have been surprised when one of their plants has experienced a major incident.
- Overconfidence in regulatory compliance. Well crafted regulations, rules, codes and standards can also induce a false sense of confidence. These rules cannot anticipate the combinations of events that lead to catastrophic incidents most of which are unusual, even bizarre. Standards merely provide a framework for successful operational integrity. Detailed analyses must be also be carried out by facility managers and workers.
- Ineffective information flow. A recurrent finding in disaster research is that information concerning potential problems was actually available within an organisation but this was not communicated to the relevant decision-makers. One reason for this is that most people do not want to be the bearer of bad news. This leads to information being more and more diluted as it travels up the management chain.
- Ineffective auditing. Good audits should attempt to identify the root causes behind any findings. Senior management should follow up the audit findings by reviewing the audit, the audit process, and the audit follow-up in detail. This also provides an opportunity to examine improvements required within management systems.
Economic and business factors commonly exert pressure on an organisation’s leaders; however this must never be allowed to interfere with its proactive safety culture.
[1] R10830 Sutton, I., (2009), Should Your Organization Fly Warning Flags?, Chemical Engineering Progress, Vol 105, Iss 12, pp 22-26, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New York
Members may read the full article which provides further excellent advice concerning process safety management.
Write a Comment
February 4th, 2010
At the BPIR.com we have been focusing on collecting good or best practices. This is what we believe our customers want. However, perhaps we can learn just as much from bad practices – of what not to do!
There are many cases of poor service that I could highlight but I will highlight the most recent that happened today. It was to do with Vodafone, a mobile phone service provider. I was thinking of not naming the company but how else will we get these companies to change? Over the last week or so I had gone in and out of their website to make changes to my add-on services. In each instance there were problems with their website – saying that the service was unavailable and various functions not working. This was not untypical, I have had similar experiences in the last few years but I still preferred to use their website than their automated phone service which is equally frustrating (especially when entering information via their top-up system and if something goes wrong, as it often does, the whole process needs to be gone through again).
Well today I managed to top-up My Account via the website and then I selected one of their Add-On services – Best Mates. I managed to add 3 best mate phone numbers but when I clicked on submit I received a message to say the numbers were not recorded and to contact customer service. However, the system still took $18.00 from my account!
I then rang their customer service. To speak to customer service and complain about their customer service I was informed by the automated message that I will need to pay $1.00 for this privilege. I had to press “1” on my phone to agree to this as there was no alternative. Unfortunately, after pressing “1” the call dropped off and so I was now in a situation where I had paid $18.00 for a service that didn’t work and another $1. I then went through the whole process again for another $1 and managed to speak to customer service.
At this point I complained about my experience but I could tell it was on deaf ears and nothing would change in the future. The person said they knew there were problems with the website and apololgised. I recommended that until the website works correctly it should be taken out of service or have warnings not to use the My Account area. Surely, it is not too hard for a large global company which reports huge profits to have a website that works? Surely they must realize that many of their WebPages do not work correctly?
Well, at least, Vodafone did reimburse the $2 for speaking to their customer service but of course they would not reimburse me for the time I wasted using their website (over an hour over the last week). Unfortunately, Vodafone is not alone. Many companies survive and prosper even though they have many bad practices – particularly to do with service delivery. This is usually because there are few alternatives for the customer or it takes too much time and effort for the customer to make a switch.
So that is my story. I am not sure how valuable it is as a learning experience for other companies? How important is it for your company to listen to your customers? Do your employees use your company’s products and services so that they can experience these from the perspectives of a customer? What is your opinion on whether the BPIR.com should highlight bad practices? Should we have a section on our website allowing our members to record bad practices to encourage companies to get their act together? Perhaps these could be balanced by allowing members to add good practices too for the same company.
Your thoughts please?
Best regards
Robin
Dr Robin Mann, Commercial Director and Part-Owner, BPIR.com Limited,
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Write a Comment
January 28th, 2010
Over the last year, I have been busy running benchmarking workshops in Bahrain, Kuwait, UAE, Singapore and the United Kingdom. The training addresses the misconceptions surrounding benchmarking and aims to increase the professionalism of benchmarking through a certification scheme.
Through my research and experience it is evident that many organisations have misunderstood benchmarking or applied it incorrectly with poor results. In one of COER’s recent studies on behalf of the Global Benchmarking Network we identified that:
- 25% of respondents that used benchmarking had not been trained in benchmarking and another 30% of respondents indicated that “only a few of the employees had received training or that training was rarely given”.
- 30% of respondents that used benchmarking do not follow a particular benchmarking methodology when conducting benchmarking projects.
- 25% of respondents do not follow (or rarely follow) a benchmarking code of conduct when undertaking a benchmarking project.
- 30% of respondents “do not, rarely, or sometimes” develop a project brief for their benchmarking project specifying the aim, scope, sponsor, and members of the benchmarking team – thus indicating poor project planning.
- 35% of respondents do not (or rarely) undertake a cost and benefits analysis of the project once it is completed.
The methodology that I promote is the TRADE best practice benchmarking methodology. TRADE focuses on the exchange (or” trade”) of information and best practices to improve the performance of processes, goods and services. Use of this methodology, and its prescriptive approach, ensures that benchmarking projects:
a) are focused on key areas of importance
b) have the buy-in of key stakeholders at each and every step of the project
c) are conducted professionally using a sound research approach
d) deliver results. After each stage of TRADE, the project is reviewed to ensure it is on-track. If it is not on-track, the project can be stopped or the direction of the project changed.
TRADE significantly increases the likelihood that best practices will be found, often resulting in breakthrough improvements. On average, as identified in COER’s study, successful benchmarking projects produce a return of more than US$250,000 – therefore it is well worth investing the time in learning and adopting a proven methodology.
To help organisations learn more about benchmarking, COER has just launched a series of You Tube videos on benchmarking showing snippets from a presentation I gave at the Business Excellence Global Conference in Singapore:
1. A benchmarking example from the health sector
2. What is benchmarking?
3. TRADE best practice benchmarking and certification Part 1
4. TRADE best practice benchmarking and certification Part 2
5. Popularity of benchmarking
6. Benchmarking is becoming easier due to advances in social media
7. What is the BPIR.com? – and how it supports benchmarking
I hope that you find them useful. Good luck with your benchmarking efforts!
Best regards
Robin
Dr Robin Mann, Commercial Director and Part-Owner, BPIR.com Limited,
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Write a Comment
January 28th, 2010
Over the next few months I will be running workshops on TRADE best practice benchmarking in the following countries:
- February 21 - 22 : Benchmarking for Excellence, Kuwait
Refer to brochure for further information
- February 28 - 1 March: Benchmarking for Excellence, Bahrain
Refer to brochure for further information
- April 15 -16: Benchmarking for Excellence, Edinburgh, UK
Email: Pat Ellenger,
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
, Best Practice Club.
- April 21 -22: Benchmarking for Excellence, London, UK
Email: Pat Ellenger,
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
, Best Practice Club.
- May 13 - 14: Benchmarking for Excellence - Singapore
Email: Susan Lim,
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
, of MgDelxis Group.
- May 17 - 18: Benchmarking for Excellence - Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Email: Susan Lim,
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
, of MgDelxis Group.
At these workshops participants will be introduced to TRADE Best Practice Benchmarking - a powerful approach to benchmarking that has been designed to ensure that benchmarking projects are successful and deliver innovative best practices. All those that attend the training will receive a “Benchmarking Awareness” certificate with the opportunity to progress to "Benchmarking Proficiency" and "Benchmarking Mastery".
The training is very practical and participants will work on problems/issues that are relevant to their own organization. Projects can be on such diverse areas as; improving a customer complaint management system, reducing changeover time, best practices in the application of the Balanced Scorecard, becoming an industry leader for a supplier relationship process, developing a winning team culture and reducing the time to recruit new staff.
We also offer In-house training courses. For more information on TRADE refer to http://www.coer.org.nz/trade
Best regards
Robin
Dr Robin Mann, Commercial Director and Part-Owner, BPIR.com Limited,
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Write a Comment
December 10th, 2009
In their pursuit to be the best small nation navy in the world, the Royal New Zealand Navy has won the gold award of the New Zealand Business Excellence Award (NZBEA) for 2009.
As a result of their commitment to excellence and achieving their vision the navy productivity doubled in ten years through organisational learning and teamwork.
Well done to the Royal New Zealand Navy!
Media press release:
Navy Wins Gold, Productivity Doubles in Ten Years
The Royal New Zealand Navy has become the first public sector organisation in New Zealand, and only the third New Zealand business in 10 years, to win an internationally recognised Baldridge Gold Award from the New Zealand Business Excellence Foundation.
The award will be presented by His Excellency the Governor General, Sir Anand Satyanand this Friday at a ceremony in Auckland.
Chief of Navy, Rear Admiral Tony Parr is delighted at the Navy’s success.
“This award is both national and international recognition of the Royal New Zealand Navy as a world class organisation,” said Rear Admiral Parr. “It’s a significant milestone on our journey to achieving operational excellence and our vision of being the best small nation Navy in the world.”
The Baldridge Gold Award has only been won by two other New Zealand companies in the last decade; Vero Insurance and NZ Aluminium Smelters.
“The award recognises that the support organisation we have for our ships and people is as good as that of any business or enterprise. That organisation is essential for delivering the Navy’s operational capability by way of ships at sea,” said Admiral Parr.
“We are now twice as productive for every person at sea as we were ten years ago. We’ve taken delivery of new ships since 2007 and will soon be operating a fleet of 12 ships that deliver the full range of maritime military capability from combat and security missions to peacekeeping, border patrol and humanitarian and disaster relief.”
“To support a high operational tempo in a financial environment that is always constrained we had to focus on continuous improvement in technology, business processes and the training and employment of our people. As a result of this work we have achieved a significant increase in the number of days ships are spending at sea.”
Rear Admiral Parr praised the work of Navy people over the period of involvement with the New Zealand Business Excellence Foundation.
“This award demonstrates that the Royal New Zealand Navy is receptive to change and new ways of doing business, and that our people are high achievers.
“It has been a journey of 10 years duration – a testament to the shared vision of successive Chiefs of Navy over that time, and indicative of an organisation that is responsive to change and achieving value for money for the Government and people of New Zealand.
“Operational excellence in the delivery of maritime military capability is our ultimate goal but we know that we can only achieve this if we have excellent business processes to keep our ships at sea and our people trained, competent and motivated. The award, and the rigorous evaluation process it involves, demonstrates that the Navy understands its business, understands how its resources are allocated and is disciplined about its strategic direction.”
December 10th, 2009
The winners of New Zealand Business Excellence Award were announced on Friday 20th November, the winners were: Royal New Zealand Navy - Gold award New Zealand Fire Service - Silver award Western Bay of Plenty District Council - Silver award
The New Zealand Business Excellence Award is based on the US Baldrige which gives the winners a global recognition.
Congratulations for the winners
Media press release:
Navy sails to victory in NZ’s toughest and most prestigious performance excellence awards
The Royal New Zealand Navy have achieved the highest accolade in the 2009 New Zealand Business Excellence Awards, to be presented at a gala luncheon today (Friday 20th Nov).
Another state service, The New Zealand Fire Service is to receive a silver award, as will the Western Bay of Plenty District Council.
The awards are administered by the New Zealand Business Excellence Foundation. Foundation CEO, Mike Watson, says “Being awarded a Gold gives the winner official World Class status. These awards are unique in that they are based on an international criteria and scoring system and a rigorous 4 stage assessment process. They are the only awards in New Zealand which are fully aligned to the internationally respected US Baldrige criteria. Only 2 other Gold level Awards have been presented in New Zealand in the past 13 years.”
The presentation of the Gold Award marks the culmination of more than a decade of hard work by the Navy having already achieved 2 NZBEA bronze and a silver award. In their assessment the judges recognised: “The Royal New Zealand Navy have demonstrated a long term commitment to excellence and achieving their vision (to be the best small nation navy in the world). Organisational learning and a strong commitment to teamwork is well embedded in the Navy coupled with a passion for efficiency and innovation. The Navy have a number of world class systems and are recognised as a role model for many other organizations.”
Chief of Navy, Rear Admiral Tony Parr said “This award is both national and international endorsement of the Royal New Zealand Navy as a world class organization. Operational excellence in the delivery of maritime military capability is our ultimate goal but we know that we can only achieve this if we have excellent business processes to keep our ships at sea and our people trained, competent and motivated. The NZBEA Gold Award, and the rigorous evaluation process it involves, demonstrates that the Navy understands its business, understands how its resources are allocated and is disciplined about its strategic direction.”
The New Zealand Fire Service embarked on the NZBEA journey in 2002, winning a bronze award in 2005. NZFS Chief Executive and National Commander Mike Hall says "Achieving a Silver Business Excellence award is the culmination of a great deal of hard work and commitment from across the organisation. This award recognises that effort and encourages us to maintain our performance improvement focus for the Fire Service."
The other organization to be awarded an NZBEA silver award is Western Bay of Plenty District Council. CEO, Glenn Snelgrove said the silver award validated his organisation's approach that integrated planning, service delivery and monitoring in local government was fundamental to delivering effective results.
"Council's are inherently complex organisations that often have to meet the competing demands of providing an array of services within the bounds of a tight legislative, budgetary and reporting framework. The NZBEF model has been fundamental to ensuring every member of the council team is focused on meeting these demands through well planned, cost effective service delivery to Western Bay residents and ratepayers."
Presented alongside the Business Excellence Awards will be the distinct second tier of awards, the NZ Business Achievement Awards. These are an abridged but still tough version of the Business Excellence Awards. Honoured in this category will be Saint Clair Family Estate and Recreational Services. Managing Director of Saint Clair Family Estate Neal Ibbotson said that achieving the highest level in the 2009 NZ Business Achievement Awards is due to the commitment of all of the quality Saint Clair team. “We commit to quality across all aspects of our business – quality people, quality vineyard management, quality wine making, quality marketing and quality distribution. We continually ask the question ‘How Do We Do It Better'? This award signifies the success of our philosophy while at the same time empowers us to continue to grow, develop, and improve.
It is the team approach of our excellent people who are able to make a difference and ensure the highest possible standard within the business with the ultimate goal of producing world class wines of excellence”.
Brett Turner, Managing Director, Recreational Services says “This is a great reward for all involved – more than ticking the boxes of a submission process we really took on board all the learnings, and have made significant changes throughout the company. It is great to have this formal recognition, but even better to know that we are now a more focused and dynamic organisation as a result of the process we went through to achieve it.”
The 2009 New Zealand Business Excellence Awards Gala Luncheon takes place at the National Maritime Museum in Auckland, 11.45 – 3.30 today (Friday 20th November).
www.nzbef.org.nz
November 23rd, 2009
The strength of the BPIR.com is found in its vast amount of content in the form of research and case studies, and the fact that it is all accessible by keyword searches. To do a keyword search simply type your keyword into the "search site" box at the top right of the BPIR.com Home Page. Note if you perform this search from the non-members area you will only find information in the non-members area - to see the power of this search it needs to be done in the member's area.
The value of doing a keyword search is evidenced by a recent request from a member who needed assistance in finding information on "Best Practices in ATTENDANCE MANAGEMENT." We had a look using the keyword search feature. We searched "Absence", "Absenteeism", "Attendance", and "Employee Absence" and were able to respond with:
Keyword: Attendance
Measures (2)
Tools & Techniques (5)
Case Studies (12)
Research Studies (7)
See screenshot of search results
Keyword: Absence
Measures (6)
Tools & Techniques (10)
Case Studies (16)
Research Studies (13)
See screenshot of search results
Keyword: Absenteeism
Measures (8)
Tools & Techniques (10)
Case Studies (9)
Research Studies (26)
See screenshot of search results
Keywords: Employee Absence
Measures (6)
Tools & Techniques (7)
Case Studies (11)
Research Studies (10)
See screenshot of search results
Some of these may be duplicates. None specifically address "Best Practices in Attendance Management", but best practices can be drawn from the Case Studies and Research Studies. For example things like Employee Engagement, Work/Life Balance, Wellness Programmes, Reward and Recognition programmes, Job Sharing are all reported as being useful in reducing absenteeism (improving attendance)
Here are a couple of the 10 Research Studies that came up in a keyword search "employee absence".
Absence control and unscheduled absences
This snippet and its associated article provide evidence of the use of absence control programmes. In a 2004 CCH absence survey employers reported that 60% of unscheduled absences were for reasons other than physical illness. Reasons given for absences included: family issues (21%), personal needs (20%), employees` entitlement mentality (14%), stress (5%).
Respondents ranked absence control programmes on a 1-5 scale in order of effectiveness as:
1) Paid leave banks (also known as paid time-off programmes) 3.9 (used by
21%). These programmes provide employees with a bank of hours to be used for various purposes instead of traditional separate accounts for sick, vacation, and personal time;
2) No-fault systems 3.7 (used by 31%). This programme limits the number of unscheduled absences allowed, regardless of circumstances, and take specific
disciplinary actions if that number is exceeded;
3) Disciplinary action (most popular and used by 88%) 3.5;
4) Buy-back programmes 3.4 (used by 17%). In these programmes employees are compensated for the allotted time off that they don`t use;
5) Yearly review process 3.2 (used by 58%);
6) Personal recognition programmes 3.10 (used by 33%);
7) Bonus programmes 3.10.
Article R6299
Work / Life Balance Initiatives impact on absenteeism
This snippet and its associated article discuss the impact of Work / Life Balance Initiatives on absenteeism. In a 2004 CCH absence survey employers reported they had an average of 3.4 work-life programmes in operation and those organisations reported as having better morale offered a greater number of initiatives than those with fair to poor morale. Respondents also ranked, on a 1-5 scale, the work-life balance initiatives used that best reduced unplanned absences. These were reported in order of effectiveness
as:
1) Flexible scheduling 3.8 (used by 66% of respondents);
2) Compressed work week 3.8 (used by 28% of respondents);
3) Leave for school functions 3.6 (used by 24% of respondents);
4) On-site health services 3.6 (used by 23% of respondents);
5) Job sharing 3.5 (used by 25% of respondents);
6) Telecommuting 3.5 (used by 20% of respondents);
7) employee assistance program 3.0 (used by 73% of respondents);
8) Work-life seminars 3.0 (used by 15% of respondents);
9) Wellness programs 3.9 (used by 41% of respondents);
10) Child care referral programs 2.8 (used by 14% of respondents)
Article R6299
If you haven't already - why not join the BPIR right now?
Our resources will not only help you to get through the recession they can also help to take your business to the next level.
Kevin McKenna
BPIR
Write a Comment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BPIR Blog